WAI UA Teleconf
25 Apr 2000
Jon Gunderson (Chair)
Ian Jacobs (Scribe)
Harvey Bingham
David Poehlman
Denis Anson
Mark Novak
Al Gilman
Dick Brown
Tim Lacy
Jim Allan
Kitch Barnicle
Gregory Rosmaita
Charles McCathieNevile
Mickey Quenzer
Rich Schwerdtfeger
Absent:
Hans Riesebos
Regrets:
Madeleine Rothberg
Next teleconference: May 2nd at 1:00-2:30 EST
NOTE: This is different from the time originally sent to the group!
Agenda [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0200.html
1) Review of Action Items
1a) Completed
2.IJ: Update document based on 4/25/00 telecon resolutions
3.IJ: Contact MR on importance of arbitrary repostioning in
Checkpoint 4.7
Email sent to list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0208.html
5.DA: Send name of new organization to list that was mentioned by
some
from the US Census Bureau
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0218.html
8.DB: Get Tim Lacy to review G+
Done.
14.RS, AG: Take notification of focus and view changes to PF as
possible
DOM 3 requirement.
15.WG: Read EH's proposal related to definition of content
JG, MN, DP, IJ, DA, KB
11.GR: Send to list screen shot of JFW Window list.
1b) Continued
1.IJ: Draft a preliminary executive summary/mini-FAQ for developers.
(No deadline.)
4.CMN: Propose a technique that explains how serialization plus
navigation would suffice for Checkpoint 8.1.
6.DA: Review techniques for Guidelines 7 and 8
7.DA: Get confirmation that the numbers for checkpoint 4.5 make
sense
DA: Pending.
9.GR: Look into which checkpoints would benefit from audio examples
in
the techniques document.
10.GR: Review techniques for Sections 3.7 and 3.8
12.MQ: Review techniques for Guidelines 9 and 10
13.MR: Send URI to Micrsoft's implementation of synchronized
audio/video
slowing down to the list
2) Announcements
2. Joint UA/WC Telecon moved to May 4th
3) Discussion
1.PR#278: Definition of "content", etc
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#278
Ian's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0207.html
Resolved: Adopt Eric's proposal + Ian's addendum.
Action IJ: Add definitions to the document.
2.PR#271: Checkpoint 4.7: Change to P2 since arbitrary repositioning
not a requirement.
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#271
/* Ian summarizes discussion of last week */
AG: The requirement is that you be able to position captions
w.r.t. the video. (Needs to be clear in checkpoint.)
TL: I'd like to run this by the IE Team.
IJ: Note that the primary question is what's the accessibility
requirement.
TL: I will send email to the list.
AG: You could ask Cindy King (at Galudet); she's done work
in this area.
Action AG: Write to her and copy me.
3.PR#233: Checkpoint 7.6: What does "structure" mean here?
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#233
Refer to JG's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0086.html
Refer to Al's email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0188.html
AG: I thought next week's teleconf on navigation was for
fact-finding?
JG: More about markup.
AG: How can you tell the implementor what is structural?
You want to discuss with WCAG WG what you know from
the markup.
IJ: Some things are encoded in HTML spec.
AG: But some are encoded in layout, not in header tree.
Proposal:
1) We leave the word "structure" in the checkpoint text
(Allow the user to navigate according to structure.)
AG: The "gotcha" I see is when the markup is not helpful
to you (e.g., current practice). Skip subtree capability
is assumed by WCAG (e.g., skipping navbars). That's why
teleconf next week would be useful: talk to WCAG about
what model in UAs may be expected by authors.
2) Explain that structure is based on the document object
model (in the generic sense) but may have more
semantic information when known from the markup language
definition, through schemas, etc.
3) Therefore, the minimal requirement (since the goals are
orientation and rapid navigation) is to allow navigation
according to the semantic model known for the markup language,
paying particular attention to block and grouping mechanisms,
and having a subtree skip and/or hide functionality.
AG: I'm not happy with this proposal. You should state more of
what the user needs:
1) Decompose the page into principle parts
2) Be able to get to the beginning of any part (quickly).
MN: That's what the "e.g." in the current 7.6 says to me.
IJ: Two pieces:
a) Where does the structure come from?
- Semantic model (structure, schemas, specifications)
- Repair of poorly constructed page is extra-credit.
b) What set of functionalities of navigation?
AG: I don't think that we should be espousing theories about
what the UA should provide if why don't apply to actual
content in the world. We need evidence that something
is effective, not only readily achievable. The specs on
whole are not effective in this regard (point "a" from Ian).
I think you can say some minimum things from known structures
(e.g., headers).
AG: I think it's easier to come up with performance requirements
(e.g., lists no lnoger than five) rather than rules for
extracting the navigation tree from markup.
AG: I agree with statements like "If there are headings, you
should include them."
IJ: Are you saying we can't rely on the markup?
AG: No. If you just use HTML, you don't get a usable product.
You have people using tables and frames to implement the
same functional object. People have N ways of building a
header bar. The specs don't tell you how to do this.
AG: You have evidence of user agents doing good things in
structured navigation, but you have not criteria for
drawing the line.
JG: Are you suggesting that we leave open the minimal
requirement?
AG: Almost: include what is necessary, but indicate that
it's not sufficient. More research would be necessary
to know what's a minimum requirement for a markup language.
KG: I think we can make the argument about a lot of checkpoints.
DA: Then we'll continue to get the complaint that people don't
know when they conform.
JG: Does the configuration checkpoint help us?
AG: It helps me. I think you have to consider 7.6, 7.7,
and 8.6 (orientation) together.
AG: The user agent's view has to have structure, so that
the user can form a navigation model. Yes, the
markup specs and author's intent help infer structure.
IJ: In my mind, the author provides a "view" and the user
agent allows the user to handle this view flexibly.
AG: The requirement for structured navigation to provide
a structure that the user can move through. How this relates
to what's provided in the format is part of the implementation.
It's not the basic requirement. The user needs to break the
problem down into parts. And to be able to navigate to them.
The mission statement is missing.
IJ: I hear Al saying that "chunk" navigation is the requirement.
We subsumed this under "structured navigation" since we
knew structure generically (doc tree). This checkpoint
subsumed a number of other checkpoints (e.g., table cell
navigation), which are in techniques.
/* Charles drops out */
AG:
a) Chunk navigation is not the only piece we need to address.
But it's a good example of where our problems come from.
b) In PF, we're working on XML (DTD) guidelines. So that users
can break down content into component parts.
AG: We want this guideline to drive the PF dialogues. I need
this to state the functional requirement for the user.
IJ: "Navigate efficiently to significant components of content."
RS: What about "contextual navigation"?
AG: "Contextual navigation" is a superclass of "structured
navigation".
GR: Need to provide the ability to expand and contract
subtrees.
GR: Issues of navigation and others are coming to light in
the effort to generalize the content guidelines.
Action AG: Write comments based on current techniques as
fodder for the WCAG/UA joint teleconf on 4 May.
Action JG: Write a proposal / clarification about 7.6 to the
list (to clarify "navigate" and "structure").
/* Discussion of timing issues: WWW9, then AC meeting,
then Ian vacation, then Jon unavailable in June,
then summer slowdown, ... */
4.PR#207: Interpretation checkpoint 2.1
http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#207
Refer to JG summary:
AG: I concur with summary sent by JG.
DA: Problem if I need to access the summary and all I have
is a source view, that doesn't cut it. You have to have
access to equivalents in the same context.
IJ: Refer to my proposal that says this:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0223.html
DA: But it's not just alternative equivalents that need to
be available in the same view. Attributes, too.
--
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel: +1 831 457-2842
Cell: +1 917 450-8783